Go to page

Go to page

I think I need to take a break from this place. The air has become too dense. It is getting less and less often that I see or participate in a civil, open, enlightening conversation that advances understanding. To do so takes way too much effort. Maybe it's just the nature of these on-line communities, I don't know.

When I read conversation this weekend that sounded like people commenting about animals at the zoo, and saw that they were actually talking about people who didn't share their particular views on the nature of things, that was enough for me.

I think I need to take a break from this place. The air has become too dense. It is getting less and less often that I see or participate in a civil, open, enlightening conversation that advances understanding. To do so takes way too much effort. Maybe it's just the nature of these on-line communities, I don't know.

When I read conversation this weekend that sounded like people commenting about animals at the zoo, and saw that they were actually talking about people who didn't share their particular views on the nature of things, that was enough for me.

Viewed from my current perspective on reality, which is one of nearly absolute unknowing, I find the certainty of many people's ideas on the nature of reality to be rather comical--clinging to little old "meaning" like a life buoy in the middle of the big bad ocean.

I've listened to every single Skeptiko. Every Mysterious Universe. And tons of other podcasts celebrating the paranormal, the alien, the Fortean, the you name it. I've read Vallee and Irreducible Mind and countless other books. I've spent my entire life reading and practicing "spirituality." I've been just about any "noun"-"ist" (including the "bad" ones) you can think of with all my heart and soul poured into every one of them belief systems.

And I still cringe every time I hear Alex say "stuck on stupid" or "biological robot". All the Skeptiko sound-bites are a kind of reduction to absurdity. Where is Skeptiko version 3 because Skeptiko 2 is really kind of "stuck on stupid" in its own way.

Don't get me wrong, I totally "get" that non-local transfer of information is a "thing" that happens--somehow. I "get" that this reality is more mysterious and maybe even more "magical" than any of us will ever know.

But how long are people going to rail on against big bad old materialism? Is that really the issue? Do you think that human nature is going to up and disappear once people realize we all have "souls" and that after death we gather in classrooms decorated in a semi-classical nature, wearing color coordinated robes to show our level of spiritual development?

Come on! Wake up. Move on. What is next? I mean that. WHAT IS NEXT? This horse is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. Find a new one and start riding it.

But it isn't dead. I just clicked on a fairly random link to a page on www.nature.com, which styles itself "International weekly journal of science". The opening words of that article were, "There is no afterlife". As far as I can see the horse is still there, galloping around.

But it isn't dead. I just clicked on a fairly random link to a page on www.nature.com, which styles itself "International weekly journal of science". The opening words of that article were, "There is no afterlife". As far as I can see the horse is still there, galloping around.

Who cares? You aren't going to know if there is an afterlife until you get there--if you get there. The ball of wax is bigger than that. This forum has devolved into a Seussian butter battle. Butter side up or butter side down. Choose your side. What if there are no sides?

But it isn't dead. I just clicked on a fairly random link to a page on www.nature.com, which styles itself "International weekly journal of science". The opening words of that article were, "There is no afterlife". As far as I can see the horse is still there, galloping around.

All I'm saying is look at your containers. Find out what container you are currently in, and then step out of it. Then again. And again. Keep looking at your damn containers. And keep moving out of them. Zip off your skin. What is underneath? Zip it off again. Find out what you believe to be true and disregard it. Ask yourself why you need to believe in anything. What is left after belief is gone? What is really true? Is there "really" an Earth? Are there really "humans"? How do you know? What is matter? What is real? What is the idea of something being "real?" Zoom your lens out and have a look. You can always zoom it back in.

John Lennox points out that according to materialism the 9/11 terrorists, Stalin, or Hitler, cannot be blamed because they were "dancing to their DNA", so it is inconsistent to believe in materialism and then to criticize God or anything else on moral grounds. Materialists do recognize morality despite their philosophical views that good and evil do not exist.

It seems to me that when materialists claim that there are scientific grounds or humanistic reasons for morality, it is just another example of materialist incoherence, another weird thing people believe. If you belive there is no good and no evil, but you believe some things are good and others are evil, then how can you trust your faculties of reason and believe anything?

The way I see it, non-materialists/theists have the same problem. There are all kinds of problems with understanding what is moral if the starting point is God. But at least thank you for actually bringing God into the discussion, I appreciate that.

Mac flies the coup as he realizes Alex is likely not going to engage in his Skeptic baiting. He insults the rest of us as he leaves. The three amigos chime in, with the usual materialist baloney that they've read everything and know everything, and pile on the insults one after the other.

The way I see it, non-materialists/theists have the same problem. There are all kinds of problems with understanding what is moral if the starting point is God. But at least thank you for actually bringing God into the discussion, I appreciate that.

Mac flies the coup as he realizes Alex is likely not going to engage in his Skeptic baiting. He insults the rest of us as he leaves. The three amigos chime in, with the usual materialist baloney that they've read everything and know everything, and pile on the insults one after the other.

On the problem of meaning and meaninglessness; if we accept the testimony of NDEers then (it seems to me) the person we live as in this world is not our real identity. I mean the human person that begins as an infant etc. When we talk about meaning, we usually mean meaning from the point of view of the human person in this world; but if the person we live as in this world is not our real self, then that is also not the perspective from which to evaluate the meaning of our human life.

funny paradox... I mean, in some some sense life may not have the meaning we think it does, but Atheists don't get credit for their answer because they weren't able to explain their work (loose reference to 6th grade math)

Mac flies the coup as he realizes Alex is likely not going to engage in his Skeptic baiting. He insults the rest of us as he leaves. The three amigos chime in, with the usual materialist baloney that they've read everything and know everything, and pile on the insults one after the other.

If you are referring to me as one of the amigos then you are making zero sense. I'm not a "materialist", whatever that is. I don't in any way accept the idea that the brain somehow physically generates "being" through the machinations of chemicals and atoms. I don't really know how "being" is generated, but I doubt it is the meat in the brain doing it. What I don't do is get out my handy label maker machine and slap a label on someone every time my tummy gets upset by an idea that doesn't fit my neat little conception of reality. Why do you have so much energy invested in being "right". Loosen up.

If you are referring to me as one of the amigos then you are making zero sense. I'm not a "materialist", whatever that is. I don't in any way accept the idea that the brain somehow physically generates "being" through the machinations of chemicals and atoms. I don't really know how "being" is generated, but I doubt it is the meat in the brain doing it. What I don't do is get out my handy label maker machine and slap a label on someone every time my tummy gets upset by an idea that doesn't fit my neat little conception of reality. Why do you have so much energy invested in being "right". Loosen up.

You know, at the beginning when you started posting here i really liked your stuff, but recently you went mad with accusations and talking about materialists all the time. You can do better than that, right?

John Lennox points out that according to materialism the 9/11 terrorists, Stalin, or Hitler, cannot be blamed because they were "dancing to their DNA", so it is inconsistent to believe in materialism and then to criticize God or anything else on moral grounds. Materialists do recognize morality despite their philosophical views that good and evil do not exist.

It seems to me that when materialists claim that there are scientific grounds or humanistic reasons for morality, it is just another example of materialist incoherence, another weird thing people believe. If you belive there is no good and no evil, but you believe some things are good and others are evil, then how can you trust your faculties of reason and believe anything?

“The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion. He concludes, Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”

You know, at the beginning when you started posting here i really liked your stuff, but recently you went mad with accusations and talking about materialists all the time. You can do better than that, right?

The way I see it, non-materialists/theists have the same problem. There are all kinds of problems with understanding what is moral if the starting point is God. But at least thank you for actually bringing God into the discussion, I appreciate that.

There's actually good science showing that communities which behave altruistically succeed because they are playing the game of life better. This is true for glue mats as well as for human societies. Of course, human society seems to be currently on a collision course with a Mass Extinction Event, which in my mind is a good indicator of how we're doing.

You know, at the beginning when you started posting here i really liked your stuff, but recently you went mad with accusations and talking about materialists all the time. You can do better than that, right?

It is not my intention to insult anyone. And I don't have any answers. But it just makes sense that if you are so heavily invested in your belief system that you have to defend it so heartily--maybe there is an issue.

I don't make any claims to enlightenment--that would be absurd. But I was communicating for a while with a fairly well known dude who likes to think he helps people see more clearly. The point he was trying to make to me was that you could never become enlightened as long as you had any idea of what enlightenment was. If you had a conception about it, then forget it. Because all the farther you would get is that conception. You had to let go of your conception of enlightenment, and your conception of conceptions. It's like clearing the muck from a dirty window. If you have an idea of how something is already, then you can't possibly see how it may be in reality, if such a thing exists. You are seeing your idea of the thing, or at best viewing the thing through the lens of your idea. The same idea applies to "figuring things out" or making models of reality. Instead of building and layering using logic and ideas and language and experience, why not tear everything away and see what is left when there is nothing there? You might be surprised.